Communicative competance-hale samavati
Hale Samavati What is communicative competence? ''' The term communicative competence is comprised of two words, the combination of which means competence to communicate. Competence term first was introduced to linguistic discourse by Chomsky. Chomsky made the distinction between competence and performance. Competence is the linguist knowledge of idealized native speaker, an innate biological function of the mind that allows individuals to generate the infinite set of grammatical sentences that constitutes their language. And performance is the actual use of language in real situations. After introducing the idea by Chomsky, some other scholars expressed their disapproval about the idea of using the concept of linguistic competence as a theoretical ground of the methodology for learning, teaching and testing languages. They found Hymes's communicative competence the alternative to Chomsky's concept of competence. Hymes (1972) defined communicative competence not only as an inherent grammatical competence but also as the ability to use grammatical competence in a variety of communicative situations, thus bringing the sociolinguistic perspective into Chomsky's linguistic view of competence. For Hymes (1972), such competence involves not only knowing the grammatical rules of a language but also what to say to whom in what circumstances and how to say it; that is, the rules of grammar are useless without the rules of language use. Widdowson (1983) made a distinction between competence and capacity. In this respect, he defined competence the knowledge of linguistic and sociolinguistic conventions/norms. Under capacity, which he often referred to as procedural or communicative capacity, he understood the ability to use knowledge as means of creating meaning in a language. Widdowson is said to be the first who in his reflections on the relationship between competence and performance gave more attention to performance or real language use. Canale and Swain (1980) and Canale (1983) understood communicative competence as a combination of an underlying system of knowledge and skill needed for communication. In their concept of communicative competence, knowledge refers to the (conscious or unconscious) knowledge of an individual about language and about other aspects of language use. According to them, there are three types of knowledge: 1- knowledge of underlying grammatical principles 2- knowledge of how to use language in a social context in order to fulfil communicative functions 3- Knowledge of how to combine utterances and communicative functions with respect to discourse principles. In addition, their concept of skill refers to how an individual can use the knowledge in actual communication. According to Canale (1983), skill requires a further distinction between underlying capacity and its manifestation in real communication, that is to say, in performance. Unlike Hymes, Canale and Swain or even Widdowson, Savignon (1972 -1983) put a much greater emphasis on the aspect of ability in her concept of communicative competence. Savignon described communicative competence as the ability to function in a truly communicative setting that is, in a dynamic exchange in which linguistic competence must adapt itself to the total informational input, both linguistic and paralinguistic, of one or more interlocutors" (Savignon, 1972:8). As to the distinction between competence and performance, Savignon referred to competence as an underlying ability and to performance as an open manifestation of competence. In her opinion, competence can be observed, developed, maintained and evaluated only through performance. Savignon equates communicative competence with language proficiency. Bachman (1990) suggested using the term «communicative language ability», claiming that this term combines in itself the meanings of both language proficiency and communicative competence. Bachman defined communicative language ability as a concept comprised of knowledge or competence and capacity for appropriate use of knowledge in a contextual communicative language use. In elaborating on this definition, Bachman devoted special attention to the aspect of language use - that is, the way how language is used for the purpose of achieving a particular communicative goal in a specific situational context of communication. A componential model of Co-Co was first developed by Canale& Swain (1980) and later refined by Canale (1983). Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei&Thurrell (1995) further modified the model. In their view, CoCo may be seen as a complex of knowledge and skills. '''Linguistic competence It is the knowledge of the basic elements of the language code (syntax, morphology, vocabulary, phonology, orthography). Historically the most thoroughly discussed/analysed component this competence needs no further specification, though distinctions may not be as clear-cut as often assumed (viz. ‘grammar’ vs. ‘lexis’). Actional competence ''' It is the ability to understand and convey communicative intent by interpreting and performing language functions (complimenting, reporting, agreeing/disagreeing, predicting, suggesting, etc.). There is no one-to-one relationship between linguistic forms and functions, e.g.: ‘Come here!’ (Form) = command, threat, tempting, etc. Command (function) =‘I want you to check this.’/ ‘Perhaps you can check this?/ ‘You may want to check this’ . The appreciation of this kind of competence very much underlies the emergence of functional/notional syllabuses in the 1980s (cf. Van Ek 1990). '''Discourse competence It is the ability to combine language structures into different types of unified spoken and written discourse (dialogue, political speech, poetry, academic paper, cookery recipe, etc.). This happens as an interplay of two levels: -micro level of grammar and lexis (= cohesion) -macro level of communicative intent and sociocultural context (= coherence) Although cohesion and coherence are interrelated, it occurs that: (I) a cohesive text may appear to be non-coherent (II) that a coherent text has no cohesive ties. Oral discourse competence refers to a speaker’s ability to recognize and contribute to regular dialogic patterns. These follow a number of rules that regulate, e.g. openings, turn-taking, question and answer sequences and closings in everyday conversations. ' Sociocultural competence ' It is the mastery of the sociocultural rules of language use: the appropriate application of vocabulary, register, politeness, and style in a given social situation within a given culture. Sociocultural variables are: -Social contextual (age, gender, status, time, place, etc.) -Stylistic appropriateness (politeness, degrees of formality, etc.) -Cultural (knowledge of TL community, regional differences, cross-cultural awareness, etc.) -Non-verbal communicative (kinesic, prosemic, paralinguistic, etc.) 'Strategic competence ' It is the knowledge of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies which enable us to overcome difficulties when communication breakdowns occur, ie. It is the ability to express oneself in the face of difficulties or limited language proficiency. Competent language users employ different types of strategies in order to cope in real-time interaction, e.g. achievement/compensation, self-monitoring or interactional or time-gaining strategies.